Legal Research
Cases
R v Sullivan

R v Sullivan

Case [2003] NSWCCA 100 11 April 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R. v. Sullivan [2003] NSWCCA 100

HEARING DATE(S): 15 October 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Buddin J at 57; Smart AJ at 105

DECISION: Appeal against conviction allowed. Ordered that there be a new trial in respect of count 1 and counts 3-7 respectively.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal - Evidence by person criminally involved in offences - Discount in sentence given to that person - Liabiliy of that person to be re-sentenced - Whether extent of discount admissible - Whether discount and liability to be re-sentenced should be led in chief by Crown - Sufficiency of warning under s.165 of Evidence Act 1995 - Points not taken at the trial - Whether miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of failure to lead evidence of extent to discount and/or insufficiency of warning - Comment of Crown prosecutor, repeated by judge, that appellant had an interest to give certain evidence - No objection taken at the trial - Whether miscarriage of justice occurred.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s.165

CASES CITED: Asquith (1994) 72 ACrimR 250
Booth (1983) 8 ACrimR 81
Conway & Anor. v. The Quen (2000) 98 FCR 204
Davies v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378
Domican v. The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Ellem [No.2] (1994) 75 ACrimR 370
Gonzales-Betes [2001] NSWCCA 226
Grey v. The Queen (2001) 184 ALR 593
R v. Booth [1982] 2 NSWLR 847
R v. Booty NSWCCA 19/12/94
R v. Button [1991] 1 QdR 552
R v. Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153
R v. Checconi (1988) 34 ACrimR 160
R v. Chen [2002] NSWCCA 174
R v. Privett [2001] NSWCCA 518
R v. Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301
R v. Yammine [2002] NSWCCA 289
Ramey v. The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 917
Robinson (1995) 80 ACrimR 358
Robinson v. The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531
Stafford v. The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 510
TKWJ v. The Queen [2002] HCA 46
Whitehorn v. The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657

PARTIES :
Regina - respondent/Crown
Dennis John Sullivan - appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60566/00

COUNSEL: Mr. P. Strickland for appellant
Mr. L. Lampratti for respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: D.J. Humphreys for appellant
S.E. O'Connor for respondent/Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC00/31/0091

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Coleman DCJ

CCA 60566/00
DC 00/31/0091

HODGSON JA
BUDDIN J
SMART AJ
Friday 11 April 2003

REGINA v. Dennis John SULLIVAN

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 17 July 2000, the appellant was indicted before Coleman DCJ at Gosford District Court on seven counts, as follows:

Count 1
That he on 26 August 1997 in Bateau Bay in the State of New South Wales being armed with an offensive weapons, namely a 12 gauge shotgun and a shortened 22 calibre rifle, did rob Laurie Spooner, Jan Atkins, Joan Stephens of approximately $6,521.00 in money, the property of Bateau Bay Bowling Club.

Count 2
That he on 25 March 1998 at Cooranbong in the State of New South Wales…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Sullivan

Details

AGLC: R v Sullivan [2003] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sullivan, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for his involvement in criminal activities. The dispute revolved around the handling of evidence provided by someone criminally involved in the offences, specifically the extent of the discount given to that person's sentence and whether it should be admissible in the appellant's trial. The matter was brought before the court for appeal, focusing on the legal issues surrounding the admissibility of the extent of the discount and the appropriate procedure for the Crown to follow when presenting such evidence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the extent of the discount should be admissible and if the Crown was required to lead the evidence of the discount and the liability to be re-sentenced in the appellant's trial. Furthermore, the court examined whether the warning provided under section 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 was sufficient, and whether the failure to lead evidence of the extent of the discount or the insufficiency of the warning led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court considered whether the comments made by the Crown prosecutor, which were repeated by the judge, regarding the appellant's interest in giving certain evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice, given that no objection was taken at the trial.

The court found that the extent of the discount was not admissible, as it was not relevant to the appellant's case. The court held that the Crown was not required to lead evidence of the discount and the liability to be re-sentenced in the appellant's trial. Regarding the warning under section 165 of the Evidence Act 1995, the court determined that it was sufficient, as it adequately informed the appellant of the consequences of not providing the evidence. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice due to the failure to lead evidence of the extent of the discount or the insufficiency of the warning, as the appellant had not objected to the comments made by the Crown prosecutor and the judge. The court further held that the comments did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, as the appellant had not raised any objection at the trial.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Orders